Skip to content
Breaking News Alert Scientist Who Pushed To Discredit Lab-Leak Theory Received Millions In NIH Grants
Law

Rolling Stone Melts Down Over Alito Being A Christian Who Believes In Limited Government

Alito said nothing egregious or wrong — but Rolling Stone’s portrayal of his answers is an indictment of their antipathy of America’s founding ideals and principles.

Share

Left-wing corporate media is once again desperate to pin-the-scandal-on-Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, this time expressing outrage that Alito is a Christian who believes in limited government.

While at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner last week, liberal filmmaker Lauren Windsor pretended to be, as Rolling Stone put it, a “religious conservative” to try and extrapolate “gotcha” answers from Alito on various questions. None of his answers were egregious or wrong, but Rolling Stone’s portrayal of them is an indictment of their antipathy toward America’s founding ideals and principles.

Windsor, faking her entire position, told Alito she doesn’t know “that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end. I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.”

“I think you’re probably right,” Alito said. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

Of course Alito said nothing inaccurate — the left is waging a dystopian war on every “fundamental” principle from the Second Amendment to freedom of speech. Conservatives surely should not compromise their inherent, God-given rights enumerated in part by the founders all because globalist-backed leftists want total control.

“People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness,” Windsor continued in response.

“I agree with you, I agree with you,” Alito said to the horror of Rolling Stone, which claimed in its headline that Alito was “caught” saying such a, well, truthful thing.

It’s this type of feigned outrage meant to invoke a sense of hysteria from left-wing detractors who will use this mischaracterized answer to smear Alito for being a justice with religious beliefs — which apparently is not longer allowed.

But surely a justice, meant to protect the Constitution, would be best suited to interpret laws in a way that closely aligns with the founders’ intentions if they too share the same bedrock principles as, let’s say, Thomas Jefferson. During his second inaugural address, Jefferson said that he needed the “favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life.”

In fact, the very last line of the Declaration of Independence presupposes the nation’s “firm reliance” on God.

But these answers, according to Rolling Stone, show a “partisan member of a hard-right judicial faction.”

Windsor also feigned outrage over the murdering of innocent babies and said she didn’t know “how we bridge that gap” between those oppose the Dobbs v. Jackson decision and those who support it.

Alito responded by correctly stating the court is limited in what it can do to facilitate that bridge-building, adding “we have a very defined role and we need to do what we’re supposed to do.”

Windsor posted audio, purportedly from the same event last year, in which Alito said the court could not identify the individual/s who leaked the Dobbs decision because the court does not have “the power to subpoena people to testify, to subpoena records, phone records or other things like that. We don’t have that authority.”

Windsor then tried to goad Alito into agreeing that he wishes the court had more power, but Alito immediately responded by explaining, once again, the court’s power is limited.

“Well, we’re not a law enforcement agency you know, it’s, people have certain rights to privacy so law enforcement agencies can issue subpoenas, and get search warrants and all that sort of thing, but we can’t do that,” Alito responded. “Our Marshal did as much as she could do, that was limited.”

In layman’s terms, Alito acknowledges that the court lacks quite a bit of power despite the left trying to portray it as though nine individuals control the nation. 


2
0
Access Commentsx
()
x